CHARLES A. MORRISON AND SHIRLEY W. MORRISON, APPELLANTS,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ACTING THROUGH FARM SERVICE AGENCY, F/K/A FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Morrison appeals the trial court's award of attorneys' fees to the United States in a foreclosure action on remand. The court affirmed the attorneys' fees award related to foreclosure but dismissed the appeal as to the separate attorneys' fees award for dismissal of the counterclaim due to lack of jurisdiction over a non-final ruling.
The court affirmed the trial court's award of attorneys' fees arising from the final judgment of foreclosure without comment. However, because the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine the separate amount of attorneys' fees awarded due to dismissal of the counterclaim, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider the challenge to that portion of the award and dismissed that part of the appeal.
[1] A trial court's award of attorneys' fees arising from a final judgment of foreclosure is appealable.
[2] A trial court's reservation of jurisdiction to determine a separate award of attorneys' fees for the dismissal of a counterclaim renders that portion of the award non-fin…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“because the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine the distinctly separate amount of attorneys' fees awarded to appellee due to the dismissal of appellants' counterclaim, we lack jurisdiction to consider their challenge of the award”
Establishes the jurisdictional basis for dismissing part of the appeal due to the non-final nature of the reserved ruling on counterclaim-related fees.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Morrisons were parties to a foreclosure action brought by the United States through the Farm Service Agency. The case had been previously decided …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Counterclaim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
concurring.
In this appeal from the trial court’s “Final Judgment of Foreclosure and Final Judgment Dismissing Counterclaim with Prejudice,” entered on remand from our decision in United States v. Morrison, 28 So.3d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009), rev. denied, 43 So.3d 44 (Fla.2010) (table), appellants raise two points seeking reversal of the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees to appellee. We AFFIRM without comment the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees to appellee arising from the final judgment of foreclosure. However, because the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine the distinctly separate amount of attorneys’ fees awarded to appellee due to the dismissal of appellants’ counterclaim, we lack jurisdiction to consider their challenge of the award. Consequently, that portion of appellants’ appeal is DISMISSED. See Zampell Refractories, Inc. v. Welch, 61 So.3d 1160, 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Zuberer v. Zuberer, 28 So.3d 993, 993-94 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). See also Carlin v. Carlin, 895 So.2d 532, 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (holding that a finding of entitlement to attorney’s fees without setting the amount is a non-final, non-appealable ruling).
I concur, but write to acknowledge Appellants’ argument that under section 559.77(2), Florida Statutes, the issue of attorney’s fees requires a determination of whether Appellants’ counterclaim “fail[ed] to raise a justiciable issue of law or fact[.]” § 559.77(2), Fla. Stat. This argument may be meritorious, and I respectfully recommend that the trial court consider on remand whether any attorney’s fees should be imposed here. See generally Langford v. Ferrera, 823 So.2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (discussing similar standard for determining fees under previous version of section 57.105, Florida Statutes).
WETHERELL and SWANSON, JJ., concur; THOMAS, J., concurring vrith written opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Zuberer v. Zuberer, 28 So. 3d 993 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Langford v. Ferrera, 823 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- United States v. Morrison, 28 So. 3d 94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Zampell Refractories, Inc. v. Welch, 61 So. 3d 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Miller v. State, 895 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)